The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Carlos Rivero[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Tedinboston with the following rationale "proposed deletion template expired" which (coupled with that users mass deproddings around that time) suggest he misunderstands proposed deletion procedure (the templates are supposed to expire, and then said articles are reviewed by an admin who then decides whether to accept or decline the deletion). As in this case Ted expanded the article, we are at AfD. I don't feel that the new sources suffice to merit keep per WP:BIO. Referees are not auto-notable (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability), and he also fails WP:CRIMINAL (minor coverage of minor crime). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - arrest/suspension drew coverage from the NY times. USA Refereeing (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG - in addition to the Times article [1], [2], [3] Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes those sources reliable? And it's WP:ONEVENT, all the same story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unemployment fraud is not a notable crime, thus WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL are failed. Per consensus, the position of referee is not inherently notable so WP:GNG must be met, which it is not. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydration is not a crime. Some of the references relate to his crime, but not all. Also such a minor offence would never be newsworthy if he wasn't a prominent ref to begin with. Meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Criminal activity whether guilty or not fails WP:CRIM as the individual has not committed a crime against a well known individual, nor is there any particularly unusual motivation for the crime. No indication that his refereeing activities have generated significant reliable coverage of themselves (as opposed to routine coverage that he refereed one match or another). Seems an obvious WP:BLP1E article and not even sa particularly interesting 1E at that either. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.